LAWS(CE)-2009-3-175

C.C. (PREVENTIVE) Vs. SHRI DHARMI CHAND

Decided On March 26, 2009
C.C. (Preventive) Appellant
V/S
Shri Dharmi Chand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby adjudication order was set aside.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was engaged in the business of electronic items having its shop at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. On 27th May, 2005 Customs officers visited the respondent's business premises and recovered imported items mainly Digital Video Recording Cameras and Digital Still Cameras of foreign origin. Shri Dharmi Chand, Respondent herein in his statement dated 27.5.2005 stated that he was engaged in the trading of electronic items and these items of foreign origin bought from Chennai and sold in Gaffar Market. Further, by statement dated 16.6.05 Shri Dharmi Chand admitted that the seized goods were smuggled without payment of duty. The original authority confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,75,000/ - and confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 88,106/ -. He also imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on Shri Dharmi Chand. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Orient Enterprises v. C.C., Cochin reported in : 1986 (23) ELT 507 (Tribunal) held that merely because a statement has been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act does not mean that it has to be ipso facto accepted as truthful. It is only a piece of evidence, which is relevant and admissible, but its value still requires to be gauged in conjunction with other evidence and attending circumstances to prove the facts in issue. He submits that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue in respect of non -notified goods which can be discharged only by evidence. In the present case, Revenue failed to produce any evidence that the goods were of smuggled nature. So, in view of the absence of any evidence, statement cannot be relied upon.